Should I become an atheist and why?

[Wootah]

Should I become an atheist and why?

What are the benefits, practices, beliefs? Any good conversion stories?

[brunumb]

The problem arises when there is no sufficient reason to establish those foundations for truth, as in materialism, and atheism.

Or even theism.

I fully believe that you understand that things matter. I just dont think you can make sense of why they matter, or establish a foundation for purpose and truth... That is the problem.

It is not necessary to make sense of why they matter.

Why not?

I have not made sense of why they matter and I am doing fine. So, as far as I am concerned, it is not necessary.

Inventing a god as a foundation for purpose or truth does nothing to establish either.

Rejecting a god as a foundation for purpose or truth does nothing to establish anything either.

Rejecting a god claim is not meant to establish anything.

[William]

As I watch the video of cooperative empathetic animals and wonder about the usefulness of atheism, as being anything other than telling the world one does not have any beliefs in gods...

...one can say that technically speaking, the chimps and the elephants are atheists, because they do not express any belief in gods.

But this in itself does not answer the underlying question of why a god need not be involved in relation to morality.

I mention this, because being an atheist has nothing to do with developing morality as it is simply the lack of belief in gods.

[Replying to Diogenes in post #112]

A distinction needs to be made re: animal morality.

Is there any other kind of critter which develops morals? I would say the distinction has something to do with both brain size and body form.

It is generally confined to morals within the species or tribe.

Are you suggesting that some species or tribes do not naturally develop morals? How can we tell that it isn't just a case of them preferring immorality over morality?

We see this distinction clearly with the animal homo sapiens.
Even their religions tend to be tribal. This is clearly seen in the Torah where there is a prohibition of slavery among Hebrews; i.e., a Hebrew was not allowed to enslave a fellow Hebrew, but was free to take slaves from other tribes.

We also see that some folk do not think this is a moral practice at all. That having any slaves is an act of immorality, no matter how cultures might tell it.

PK wrote that he would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality. I see his point, as it would save us all from having to make things up as we go along and develop some type of moral compass from the position of complete ignorance.

It does appear suspect that morals are connected with survival needs, being that they can be made up re the needs of the many, in order to survive and so are prompted by said need to survive and the morals are adapted - as societies develop different methods of survival...morals change accordingly.

Atheism itself doesn't appear to influence moral choices at all.

Theism however, adds the notion of an influencing god-mind into the mix, which allows for some progress to be made towards doing things because it is good to do those things, rather than for the sake of - even survival, or because a supposed mindless process allows for it.

It is an interesting topic.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #121]

Rejecting a god claim is not meant to establish anything.

Even rejecting a god claim, is not a product of atheism strictly speaking.

Babies who - because they lack belief in gods, neither reject or accept god claims and that is because it is not the task of atheism to accept or reject god claims. All that is required to be an atheist is to lack belief in gods.

So the OP question "Should I become an atheist and why?" appears to be best answered as "there is no reason why anyone should 'become' an atheist. Developing a lack of belief in gods appears to have no advantage or particular purpose."

[brunumb]

So the OP question "Should I become an atheist and why?" appears to be best answered as "there is no reason why anyone should 'become' an atheist. Developing a lack of belief in gods appears to have no advantage or particular purpose."

That seems to sum it up nicely.

[Diogenes]

It is generally confined to morals within the species or tribe.

Are you suggesting that some species or tribes do not naturally develop morals? How can we tell that it isn't just a case of them preferring immorality over morality?

Perhaps I was not clear. Animals, including Homo sapiens, develop morality within their tribes because the individual benefits along with the tribe. The group has a better chance of survival if it works together, cooperates. That's all morality is: rules that facilitate cooperation.
Atheism's only role is to prevent irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

This functional (or practical) morality only applies within the species or tribe. Homo sapiens have few rules against killing Bos taurus (cattle). They are a different species. Historically Homo sapiens did not apply these moral systems outside their tribes. With Jesus of Nazareth we see a departure from tribal morality, a beginning to see other tribes of the same species and deserving the same moral protection previously reserved only for tribal members. We even see today something very new, the idea of including not only other tribes, but other species in our moral umbrella. We even have laws prohibiting animal cruelty and a developing system of protection of all species. Most of this movement is strictly secular, having no religious foundation.

[Shem Yoshi]

But if scientific materialism is true, and the physical world is all there is, and humans consciousness is nothing more then a brain fizzing with chemicals... Then what does it matter what you believe?

A lot, if it means demonising certain groups of people, restricting their human rights, encouraging hate and even the killing of some people. Religious belief is not as benign as you might like to think it is. For example, hop across to Nigeria where believers are killing people believed to be witches. Maybe flying planes into buildings because your god says it's a good thing doesn't really matter.

Even if we are just brains fizzing with chemicals (enough already) we are still thinking, feeling and caring beings who deserve to live out whatever life we have in the best way possible.

For clarification... Do you believe abortion is ok?

I am not opposed to abortion.

Well like your opinion that aborting fetus's is ok, I suppose Nigeria believes killing witches is ok.

So are you going with Dr. Pepper here? Or mountain dew?

The truth is that ideas of justice come down to opinion on materialism. Ideas of right and wrong are opinions on materialism.

However everyone still debates as if objective moral values exists. We see this all the time from people who hold materialistic views. How can we make sense of that?

Here is the options, God exist and has established truths that include justice, right and wrong and morality, and God made all people and all people ought to understand such values. Or materialism is true, God doesnt exist, nothing outside of the physical world exists, and people just create ideas of morality, right and wrong.

Note if materialism is the winning opinion, you have successfully picked Mountain Dew over Dr. Pepper.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #125]

Atheism's only role is to prevent irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

Incorrect.

Atheism's only role is to lack belief in gods.

Perhaps you are conflating atheism with antitheism. In doing so, confusion as to the role of atheism will continue.

My role is re my position as Agnostic Neutral, is to make sure that I understand that source of confusion well enough that it does not affect my understanding of the role of atheism, and to share that information with others.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #125]

Atheism's only role is to prevent irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

Incorrect.

Atheism's only role is to lack belief in gods.

Perhaps you are conflating atheism with antitheism. In doing so, confusion as to the role of atheism will continue.

My role is re my position as Agnostic Neutral, is to make sure that I understand that source of confusion well enough that it does not affect my understanding of the role of atheism, and to share that information with others.

You took my quote out of context, distorting what I wrote:

"Atheism's only role [in the formation of morality] is to prevent irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.

[Shem Yoshi]

I suppose someone could theorize that a bunch of brains that fizz could agrees to laws, like a collected common sense of brain fizz... Multiple brains could accept established agreed upon law.. Lets say that law is Liberty, and Equality (to mention a few) which i think all people should respect regardless of religious beliefs...

However a collective common sense of brain fizz can lead to mass genocide as well... The Nazi's, and what have you?


With God however, even though peoples brains fizz, and anyone can agree to any law, or not agree, and we all have the idea of morality and law to grapple with still. It can be said that our laws come from a source beyond us, that good faith is in law, and that objectivity exists, and that God has a role in our lives.

[Purple Knight]

PK wrote that he would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality. I see his point, as it would save us all from having to make things up as we go along and develop some type of moral compass from the position of complete ignorance.

It would certainly save me from having to go along with what others make up.

One person says to me, sharing is The Way. Well then I have to share, because I have no basis to reject that.

Another says, freedom and free exchange is The Way, those are the real rights, so he doesn't have to share with me. Again I have no basis for rejection, so I am beholden.

It would suck if I was enslaved and relegated to being a second-class person because I'm not a Jew, but at least I'd be equal to other slaves and have some undeniable rights with respect to them. I could at some point, say, "That was wrong." I can't now. I have no basis for it. So from where I sit, slavery is actually better. At least I would know the rules and they would stay the same. Right now, the rules are whatever anybody says they are and I just have to accept it, and they can change at any time. I don't mean to be demeaning to actual slaves and what they suffered, but I'm the oddball who would choose the physical stress of the whip over mental anguish caused by not knowing the rules. I would choose one master, over nine billion masters.